Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 52 references

A single dimension-five Lorentz-violating operator would make the Higgs-to-two-photon decay rate oscillate with the Earth's sidereal rotation, and re-binning existing LHC data by sidereal time could already set the first direct bounds near

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 06:44 UTC pith:MQQY6FJG

load-bearing objection Solid SME operator analysis for h→γγ, but the Sec. IV sensitivity estimate is off by an order of magnitude and the abstract overclaims a comparison with LHC data. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21766 v1 pith:MQQY6FJG submitted 2026-07-23 hep-ph

Probing Lorentz invariance via diphoton decays of the Higgs boson

Alan Kostelecky , Connor A. Petway , Nathaniel Sherrill This is my paper
classification hep-ph
keywords Lorentz invarianceHiggs bosondiphoton decayStandard-Model Extensioneffective field theorysidereal timeLHCsignal strength
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper argues that the cleanest way to see Lorentz invariance breaking in the Higgs sector is through the decay of the Higgs boson to two photons. It shows that, in an effective field theory that extends the Standard Model with all possible Lorentz-violating terms, all direct couplings to h→γγ first appear at dimension six in the unbroken phase and then combine after electroweak symmetry breaking into a single operator of mass dimension five. That operator would modulate the decay rate with the Earth's sidereal rotation, make the rate depend on the laboratory's location and detector orientation, and introduce new momentum-dependent terms. The paper estimates that re-binning existing ATLAS and CMS data by sidereal time could probe the 18 rotation-violation coefficients at the 10^-4 GeV^-1 level, and that the High-Luminosity LHC could reach 10^-5 GeV^-1. If realized, this would be the first direct constraint on Lorentz violation in the couplings of photons to the Higgs boson.

Core claim

Within the Standard-Model Extension, direct Lorentz-violating couplings to h→γγ are absent from the minimal renormalizable sector; they first appear as dimension-six operators in the unbroken phase, and after electroweak symmetry breaking they combine into a single dimension-five operator L = (1/4)(k_FFh)_{μνρσ} h F^{μν} F^{ρσ}. This coefficient has 21 independent components: 18 govern rotation violations, one governs boost violation, and two produce Lorentz-invariant shifts. The paper derives the first-order (interference with the Standard Model loop) and second-order (tree-level) decay rates, showing that at first order only 11 components contribute while at second order all 21 do. The res

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimension-five operator (k_FFh)_{μνρσ} h F^{μν} F^{ρσ}, decomposed into rotationally irreducible pieces labeled κ_DEh, κ_HBh, and κ_DBh, which organize the 21 independent components. This machinery carries the argument by isolating which components survive the polarization sum (only 11 at first order, all 21 at second order) and by connecting the laboratory-frame coefficients to the inertial Sun-centered frame through the Earth's rotation matrix, producing sidereal harmonics up to 4ω⊕.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity estimate of 10^-4 GeV^-1 rests on the assumption that a ±10% sidereal modulation in the h→γγ rate is actually extractable from existing LHC data under a specific detector geometry and a 100 GeV mean Higgs momentum; if real data cannot support a 10% modulation, the claimed reach does not follow.

What would settle it

A direct measurement of the h→γγ rate binned in local sidereal time at the LHC: if no oscillation with the 23h56m sidereal period and amplitude above the noise floor (corresponding to coefficients above roughly 10^-4 GeV^-1) appears, the predicted modulation is ruled out. Conversely, an observed sidereal modulation with the predicted harmonic structure and laboratory-orientation dependence would confirm the operator.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Existing ATLAS and CMS signal-strength measurements, if reanalyzed with event-level sidereal-time binning, could already constrain 18 rotation-violation coefficients at roughly 10^-4 GeV^-1.
  • Time-averaged analyses wash out the unique sidereal signal; future HL-LHC data with about ten times the current integrated luminosity could push sensitivity to about 10^-5 GeV^-1.
  • The decay rate's angular dependence requires integrating over the detector pseudorapidity; a full-acceptance detector would wash out rotation-violation signals, so restricted acceptance is a feature rather than a limitation.
  • If no sidereal modulation is found, the resulting bound would become the first direct limit on Lorentz-violating Higgs-photon couplings, independent of previously known photon-propagation constraints.
  • The single boost-violation coefficient can be accessed through the ratio of the diphoton invariant mass to the product of photon energies, giving a comparable sensitivity to the rotation coefficients.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A combined analysis of the full ATLAS and CMS datasets, which sit at slightly different colatitudes and orientations, could break degeneracies among the 18 rotation components because each laboratory sees a different harmonic pattern.
  • The same dimension-five operator also generates radiative corrections to photon propagation, so combining the diphoton bound with existing photon-birefringence limits could yield model-dependent cross-checks—a direction the paper notes but does not pursue.
  • The novel momentum dependence suggests that a dedicated search using the shape of the diphoton invariant-mass distribution, rather than just the total rate, might be even more sensitive for the boost coefficient than sidereal binning alone.
  • If such an operator exists near current sensitivity, it would likely also induce sidereal variations in related Higgs decay channels involving photons, such as h→Zγ, which could serve as an independent check.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies Lorentz-violating contributions to the diphoton decay of the Higgs boson within the Standard-Model Extension. It identifies four dimension-6 operators in the unbroken electroweak phase that, after symmetry breaking, combine into a single dimension-5 operator (k_FFh^(5))_{mu nu rho sigma} with 21 independent components. The operator is decomposed into rotationally irreducible pieces, and first-order (interference with the SM one-loop amplitude) and second-order (tree-level squared) decay rates are presented. The paper then discusses sidereal-time and laboratory-orientation signatures and gives an illustrative sensitivity estimate of ~1e-4 GeV^-1 using existing LHC data, with an extrapolation to ~1e-5 GeV^-1 at the HL-LHC.

Significance. If the operator identification and rate calculations are correct, the paper provides a useful and previously missing classification of leading Lorentz-violating interactions in h->gamma gamma: it identifies the single dominant d=5 operator, separates the 21 components into those visible at first and second order, and makes concrete, falsifiable predictions (sidereal modulations, dependence on lab orientation, and event-level kinematical correlations). The theoretical core is self-contained once the SME operator basis from Ref. [10] is accepted, and the interference scale alpha sqrt(G_F) Re[F] ~ 1e-4 GeV^-1 is correctly identified. The main weakness is that the quantitative sensitivity claims in Sec. IV are not derived from actual data and are not consistent with the paper's own Eq. (23); this affects the abstract's central quantitative statement.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The abstract says that "comparison of the theoretical modified decay rates with observed signal strengths measured by ATLAS and CMS ... indicates an estimated attainable sensitivity of order 1e-4 GeV^-1," but no such comparison is actually performed. Section IV uses a hypothetical laboratory (chi=50 deg, beta=30 deg, alpha=1 deg), assumes a mean Higgs momentum of 100 GeV, assumes a +/-10% sidereal modulation is measurable, and does not fit or rebin any ATLAS/CMS dataset. The quoted central values of mu_gamma gamma are used only as motivation. The abstract and Sec. IV should be reframed as an illustrative projection, or an actual event-level sensitivity study must be provided.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eq. (23)] There is an internal inconsistency between the quoted 1e-4 GeV^-1 sensitivity and the paper's own Eq. (23). With m_h=125 GeV, p_H=100 GeV, and |F|^2 fixed by Gamma(h->gamma gamma) ~ 9.4 keV, Eq. (23) gives (dGamma2/dOmega)/(dGamma0/dOmega) ~ (1e10 GeV^2) kappa^2 times a phase-space factor O(0.25-0.7). For kappa=1e-4 this ratio is O(10-100), not 10%. A +/-10% modulation therefore corresponds to kappa ~ (0.5-2)x1e-5, not 1e-4. In particular, the coefficient (e_kappa_FFh,o+)_JK, which is explicitly named in Sec. IV, contributes only at second order, so the 1e-4 estimate is not supported for that coefficient. The numerical claims should be revised and the derivation from the 10% modulation assumption should be shown.
  3. [Secs. III and IV] Equations (10), (15), and (17) are decay rates in the center-of-mass frame; Eq. (10) is explicitly labeled as such. Section IV nevertheless inserts a lab-frame mean Higgs momentum of 100 GeV and a pseudorapidity acceptance |eta|=2.5 without exhibiting the Lorentz boost of the two-body phase space or the transformation of the photon momenta from the lab frame into the Sun-centered frame in which the SME coefficients are constant. Without these steps, the numerical sensitivity estimates are not reproducible and the statement that the momentum dependence in Eq. (23) generates "a factor of order one" is not verifiable.
  4. [Sec. V] The HL-LHC extrapolation to 1e-5 GeV^-1 is not supported by the scaling stated in the same paragraph. Starting from a 1e-4 sensitivity with the Run 1-3 dataset, a factor of 10 in h->gamma gamma events improves a counting-statistics modulation sensitivity by sqrt(10) ~ 3, giving ~3e-5, not 1e-5. If the authors instead use the projected few-percent precision on mu_gamma gamma or a different scaling, that should be stated explicitly. As written, the outlook paragraph overstates the projected reach.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (7)] The notation with left superscripts (e.g., e_kappa_FFh,tr-) is difficult to parse. A small table listing the 21 components, their parity, and whether they enter at first or second order would greatly improve readability.
  2. [Sec. III, Eq. (10)] It would help to state explicitly whether E_h in Eq. (10) is the rest-frame energy (equal to p_h) or the lab-frame energy in a boosted event, and to note that p_h^2 = m_h^2 for on-shell decay so the factor p_h^4/E_h is just m_h^3 in the rest frame.
  3. [General] There are minor typographical and style issues, such as inconsistent hyphenation of "mass dimension" and the unexpanded phrase "(k_FFh^(5))" in the abstract. These do not affect the physics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the operator set is inherited from a cited classification, the decay-rate calculation is new, and the sensitivity estimate is an explicitly illustrative projection rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The operator set in Eq. (2) is taken from Table XVIII of Ref. [10], a prior classification by the same first author, but that classification is a parameter-free operator catalog whose stated assumptions do not include the h→γγ decay rate; it is framework inheritance, not a self-citation that smuggles in the target result. Equation (4) is a linear combination obtained after electroweak symmetry breaking, not a definition of the coefficient in terms of the final observable. The decay rates (15) and (17) are calculated from the operator (3) and the SM one-loop amplitude (9), and the paper notes they reduce to the SMEFT result in the Lorentz-invariant limit, which is a nontrivial consistency check. The sensitivity estimates in Sec. IV are explicitly introduced as an 'illustrative scenario' assuming a measurable ±10% sidereal modulation, a chosen geometry, and a mean Higgs momentum; they are not fits to ATLAS/CMS data and are not presented as measured predictions, so they do not constitute fitted inputs called predictions. The manuscript itself flags that a detailed experimental analysis using real data 'remains to be performed.' A possible internal numerical inconsistency between Eq. (23) and the claimed 10^-4 GeV^-1 sensitivity is a correctness concern, not a circularity concern, because the estimate does not feed back into the derivation of the rates. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the completeness of the cited SME operator basis and on the narrow-width, unpolarized-photon, and negligible-higher-dimension assumptions. The sensitivity projection additionally depends on hand-chosen geometric and kinematic parameters and an assumed ±10% modulation detectability; no coefficient is fitted to data in this paper.

free parameters (4)
  • modulation detectability threshold = ±10%
    Sec. IV assumes a signal modulation of order ±10% is measurable with existing data; this is an assumption, not a statistical power calculation.
  • mean Higgs-boson momentum = 100 GeV
    Used to evaluate the phase-space integrals in the illustrative sensitivity scenario (Sec. IV).
  • sensitivity-scenario geometry = χ=50°, β=30°, α=1°
    Hypothetical laboratory colatitude, beamline azimuth, and inclination chosen to illustrate the rotation-violation signal; real ATLAS/CMS geometry differs.
  • pseudorapidity acceptance endpoint = |η|=2.5
    Used as the fiducial phase-space cut in the sensitivity estimate (Sec. IV).
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The table of d≤6 SME Higgs-sector operators from Ref. [10] is complete and correct.
    The central claim that Eq. (2) contains the only operators generating h→γγ at leading order rests on the completeness of this cited table.
  • domain assumption After electroweak symmetry breaking, the four d=6 operators combine into the single d=5 operator (3) with coefficient relation (4), with no other comparable direct hγγ coupling.
    This is the paper's main algebraic step; it assumes the standard unitary-gauge treatment and neglects subleading shifts from other Lorentz-violating effects.
  • domain assumption Narrow-width approximation: production and decay factorize, and Lorentz violation leaves the Higgs propagator and production unaffected.
    Used to write μ_th ≈ 1 + dΓ/Γ0 (Eq. 11), enabling comparison with measured signal strengths.
  • domain assumption Photon polarizations are unobserved and are summed over.
    This removes sensitivity to several coefficient components; a polarization-sensitive detector would change the first-order signatures.
  • standard math The one-loop SM amplitude M0 of Ref. [43] is accurate, and F is the standard loop function.
    The first-order interference rate (15) is proportional to Re[F] and depends on its value.
  • domain assumption All other SME coefficients with d>6 or from other sectors are negligible for this channel.
    The paper states this is reasonable because higher-dimension terms are subdominant and other sectors are experimentally constrained or have suppressed couplings.
invented entities (1)
  • Lorentz-violating coefficient (k_FFh^(5))_{μνρσ} with 21 independent components independent evidence
    purpose: Parametrizes the direct h F F coupling after electroweak symmetry breaking; this is the object the proposed searches would constrain.
    The coefficient is inherited from the SME framework, but this paper gives it a falsifiable handle: predicted sidereal/annual modulations and kinematic dependences in h→γγ that could be searched for in existing or future LHC data.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 3668 in / 3667 out tokens · 166974 ms · 2026-08-01T06:44:29.956117+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Lorentz invariance via diphoton decays of the Higgs boson." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MQQY6FJG

@misc{pith2026260721766,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Lorentz invariance via diphoton decays of the Higgs boson},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MQQY6FJG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21766}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The prospects for observing small departures from Lorentz invariance are studied using effective interactions of the Higgs boson with photons. A single operator of mass-dimension five suffices to describe all leading signatures of Lorentz violation in the diphoton decay channel. Comparison of the theoretical modified decay rates with observed signal strengths measured by the ATLAS and CMS Collaborations at the Large Hadron Collider indicates an estimated attainable sensitivity to the corresponding coefficients for Lorentz violation of order $10^{-4}$ GeV$^{-1}$.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    S. Chatrchyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B716, 30 (2012)

    2012

  2. [2]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], Phys. Lett. B716, 1 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07, 088 (2023)

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], JHEP07, 088 (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    A. M. Sirunyanet al.[CMS], JHEP07, 027 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Kosteleck´ y and S

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D39, 683 (1989); V.A. Kosteleck´ y and R. Potting, Nucl. Phys. B359, 545 (1991)

    1989

  6. [6]

    Weinberg, Proc

    See, e.g., S. Weinberg, Proc. Sci. CD09, 001 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Kosteleck´ y and R

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and R. Potting, Phys. Rev. D51, 3923 (1995)

    1995

  8. [8]

    Colladay and V.A

    D. Colladay and V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D55, 6760 (1997); Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998)

    1997

  9. [9]

    Kosteleck´ y, Phys

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D69, 105009 (2004)

    2004

  10. [10]

    Kosteleck´ y and Z

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. D103, 024059 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Daviset al., J

    J.F. Daviset al., J. Geom. Anal.36, 141 (2026); V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Lett. B701, 137 (2011)

    2026

  12. [12]

    Kosteleck´ y, R

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y, R. Lehnert, M. Schreck, and B. Seradjeh, New J. Phys.27, 073901 (2025)

    2025

  13. [13]

    Lehnert, ed.,Proceedings of the 10th Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, World Scientific, Singapore, 2026; ´A

    R. Lehnert, ed.,Proceedings of the 10th Meeting on CPT and Lorentz Symmetry, World Scientific, Singapore, 2026; ´A. Roberts, Particles7, 717 (2024); T. Mariz, J.R. Nascimento and A. Petrov,Lorentz Symmetry Breaking—Classical and Quantum Aspects, Springer, New York, 2023; A. Hees, Q.G. Bailey, A. Bourgoin, H. Pihan-Le Bars, C. Guerlin, and C. Le Poncin-Laf...

    2026

  14. [14]

    Kosteleck´ y and N

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and N. Russell,Data Tables for Lorentz and CPT Violation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 11 (2011), arXiv:0801.0287v19 (2026). 18

    arXiv 2011

  15. [15]

    Kosteleck´ y and Z

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and Z. Li, Phys. Rev. D99, 056016 (2019)

    2019

  16. [16]

    Kosteleck´ y, Phys

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1818 (1998)

    1998

  17. [17]

    Edwards and V.A

    B.W. Edwards and V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Lett. B795, 620 (2019); V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D64, 076001 (2001); Phys. Rev. D61, 016002 (2000)

    2019

  18. [18]

    Nguyen [KTeV], hep-ex/0112046

    H. Nguyen [KTeV], hep-ex/0112046

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Linket al.[FOCUS], Phys

    J. Linket al.[FOCUS], Phys. Lett. B556, 7 (2003)

    2003

  20. [20]

    Abazovet al.[D0], Phys

    V.M. Abazovet al.[D0], Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 161601 (2015)

    2015

  21. [21]

    Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys

    B. Aubertet al.[BaBar], Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 131802 (2008)

    2008

  22. [22]

    Babusciet al.[KLOE], Phys

    D. Babusciet al.[KLOE], Phys. Lett. B730, 89 (2014)

    2014

  23. [23]

    Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys

    R. Aaijet al.[LHCb], Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241601 (2016)

    2016

  24. [24]

    Bergeret al., Phys

    M.S. Bergeret al., Phys. Rev. D93, 036005 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    Kosteleck´ y, E

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y, E. Lunghi, and A.R. Vieira, Phys. Lett. B769, 272 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Altschul and M.R

    B. Altschul and M.R. Schindler, Phys. Rev. D100, 075031 (2019)

    2019

  27. [27]

    Kosteleck´ y, E

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y, E. Lunghi, N. Sherrill, and A. R. Vieira, JHEP04, 143 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Lunghi, N

    E. Lunghi, N. Sherrill, A. Szczepaniak, and A. Vieira, JHEP04, 228 (2021)

    2021

  29. [29]

    Belyaev, L

    A. Belyaev, L. Cerrito, E. Lunghi, S. Moretti, and N. Sherrill, Phys. Rev. Lett.133,221601 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Lunghi and N

    E. Lunghi and N. Sherrill, Phys. Lett. B862, 139366 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Abazovet al.[D0], Phys

    V.M. Abazovet al.[D0], Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 261603 (2012)

    2012

  32. [32]

    Abtet al.[ZEUS], Phys

    I. Abtet al.[ZEUS], Phys. Rev. D107, 092008 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Phys

    A. Hayrapetyanet al.[CMS], Phys. Lett. B857, 138979 (2024)

    2024

  34. [34]

    Fu and R

    H. Fu and R. Lehnert, Phys. Lett. B762, 33 (2016)

    2016

  35. [35]

    Lunghi and N

    E. Lunghi and N. Sherrill, Phys. Rev. D98, 115018 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    I. S. Karpikov, D. Tlisov, and D. Kirpichnikov, Phys. Atom. Nucl.81, 257 (2018)

    2018

  37. [37]

    Michel and M

    A. Michel and M. Sher, Phys. Rev. D100, 095011 (2019)

    2019

  38. [38]

    Carle, N

    A. Carle, N. Chanon, and S. Perries, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 128 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    Buchmuller and D

    W. Buchmuller and D. Wyler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 621 (1986)

    1986

  40. [40]

    Grzadkowski, M

    B. Grzadkowski, M. Iskrzynski, M. Misiak, and J. Rosiek, JHEP10, 085 (2010)

    2010

  41. [41]

    A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Phys. Lett. B636, 107-113 (2006)

    2006

  42. [42]

    Kosteleck´ y and M

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D.66, 056005 (2002). 19

    2002

  43. [43]

    Shifman, A.I

    M.A. Shifman, A.I. Vainshtein, M.B. Voloshin, and V. I. Zakharov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys.30, 711-716 (1979), ITEP-42-1979

    1979

  44. [44]

    Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys

    S. Navaset al.[Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D110, 030001 (2024)

    2024

  45. [45]

    Kosteleck´ y and M

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D.80, 015020 (2009)

    2009

  46. [46]

    Bluhmet al., Phys

    R. Bluhmet al., Phys. Rev. D68, 125008 (2003); Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 090801 (2002)

    2003

  47. [47]

    Kosteleck´ y, A.C

    V.A. Kosteleck´ y, A.C. Melissinos, and M. Mewes, Phys. Lett. B761, 1 (2016); Y. Ding and V.A. Kosteleck´ y, Phys. Rev. D94, 056008 (2016)

    2016

  48. [48]

    High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report,

    I. Zurbano Fernandezet al., “High-Luminosity Large Hadron Collider (HL-LHC): Technical design report,” CERN, (2020)

    2020

  49. [49]

    Mlynarikova [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], arXiv:2307.07772

    M. Mlynarikova [ATLAS and CMS Collaborations], arXiv:2307.07772

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  50. [50]

    de Florianet al.[LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group], arXiv:1610.07922

    D. de Florianet al.[LHC Higgs Cross Section Working Group], arXiv:1610.07922

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  51. [51]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS], ATL-PHYS-PUB-2025-014 (2025)

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS], ATL-PHYS-PUB-2025-014 (2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    Aadet al.[ATLAS and CMS], ATL-PHYS-PUB-2025-018, CMS-HIG-25-002 (2025)

    G. Aadet al.[ATLAS and CMS], ATL-PHYS-PUB-2025-018, CMS-HIG-25-002 (2025). 20

    2025